I thought I saw on the web somewhere a hack so that you could change the Outlook start up logo to reflect whatever you wanted.
Kinda like changing the NT/2k login in screen. Hmmmm....... Mike -----Original Message----- From: Eric Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe I always thought calling the patch an "Outlook Security Patch" was what caused the problems in the first place. They should have called it exactly what it was - a patch that allowed Outlook to compensate for shortcomings on poorly protected messaging systems. Everyone in the industry is getting carried away with their use of the term "security" and it creates nightmares for those of us who can't necessarily assert proper security practices in our environments. Instead, we have know-it-all bosses reading "security bulletins" and having us implement whichever "solution" is the buzzword of the day. IMO, the only thing that the "Outlook Security Patch" is good for is convincing a bunch of ignorant dipsh*ts that their E-mail is safe. "If you don't want a virus, disable automatic script execution and don't double-click the frigging attachment." THAT should be in the stupid Outlook Welcome Message. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wynkoop, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:11 PM Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > I should have the option to block attachments or not! > > Explanation: > Some of us (those who work for universities with stupid staff members > and arrogant professors) don't have the option of blocking attachments > (Gosh forbid we infringe on anyone's "academic freedom"). That is > unless we wish > to endure a never ending reign of sh*t from above. Instead we have to work > around the vunerabilities found in things such as VBS, EXE, and COM > files (which we have successfully done I might add). We managed to > succesfully ward off NIMDA, Code Red, and a rash of other recent > viruses without changing what users can and can't do (see, it can be > done). Now outlook just gives my users one more reason to jump down > my throat when something doesn't work. Thanks MicroShaft. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially > unsafe > > > Even allowing your mail system to pass .EXE and .COM files is a > mistake. You should thank MS for making OL block those types of files > since you don't. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:41 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially > unsafe > > > >>>>For such a typically minor patch? > Where did you get that idea? > > The Patch didnt break Outlook, your lack of preparation did. > > Over and Out. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:30 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially > unsafe > > > You know, it astounds me that so many IT people are blind to > Microsoft's incompetence! > > BTW Mike, your 'car head light' analogy is not even relevant. A more > apt analogy would refer to the Ford Pinto's with the exploding gas > tanks. Sure the user could be mindful of driving only on roads with > no other vehicles, thereby preventing a back-end collision. The > 'solution' in service patch 2 could be likened to Microsoft removing > the gas tank altogether. > > First, I read about 70% of the material related to this service patch. > There are about 20 pages of material relating to this patch and since > I run a dept. with over 50 systems and 6 servers ON MY OWN (no help, > not even support contracts), I really don't have the time (nor is it > humanly > possible) to read every patch/update/security document produced by > Microsoft alone (to say nothing about the 50+ other products I look > after). No, I'm not whining!! > > Simply put, this patch broke Outlook!! An email program that cannot > accept > .com and .exe's is damaged! Yes, yes, I know there are other methods > of > receiving files (such as zip'ed) but the point is that no other email > program such as Eudora, Groupwise, Netscape block these attachments. > All Microsoft had to do was to either disable the dangerous > capabilities of .asp,.vbs, (et al) code OR entirely block access to > this code. IT WAS AS SIMPLE AS THAT!! > > Geezz, what's with some of you in this (supposed to be?) friendly > discussions group? > > I sent a message asking about this (yes, I admit it was > confrontational) and I read return responses basically calling me an > idiot based on inane assumptions! > > Of course, I had to risk installing this patch because the risk of an > Outlook-based virus outbreak out weighted the potential annoyance of > breaking Outlook. BTW, I have never experienced a virus outbreak in > the 6 years I've been with this company because of my pro-active > stance on these issues. > > Message to Lori: > "Project Plan and Test Plan Results"??? For such a typically minor > patch? How many IT people do you have in your organization? The last > time I had the time to do anything like that was in 98/99 for Y2K. I'm > beginning to feel very small; am I the only IT person in this > discussion group with an IT budget less than my wage? > > Message to Andy David: > See note about inane assumptions. > > Over and out, > Shawn > > -----Original Message----- > From: Exchange Discussions digest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: November 6, 2001 1:00 AM > To: exchange digest recipients > Subject: exchange digest: November 05, 2001 > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially > unsafe at tach ments > From: "Mike Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 09:38:28 -0600 > X-Message-Number: 38 > > It amazes me when people complain about this patch. First developers > wanted the ability to autmoate/script everything to customize it for > their environment. "Give us the tools! Give us the ability!" Well > Microsoft did. Now that users and administrators are too stupid, yes I > mean stupid, to be mindful of attachments and security issues, they > now blame Microsoft for releasing a buggy product. Its like blaming a > car company, when you get rear-ended, for your brake lights being out. > > Similarily, the current crap about IIS being insecure is the same > situation. If the system administrators would apply patches when they > come out, and properly configure the machines, they would have no > problems. > > When a company like Microsoft has to write into their application a > security process that the administrators should do themselves, you > have no one to blame but moron users and incompetant administrators. > > No one in our company had the ability, except admins, to open .exe, > .vbs, wsh files from Outlook before they released the patch. We have a > policy that everything must be in .zip or other compressed archive > format like .sit or .tar. This way we can limit the vulnerabilites we > have. > > People want it easy to use and administer. With that comes > responsibility. If you cant take responsibility, you do not deserve > your job. > > BTW: A company I do development for, fired 2 administrators because > they got hacked by Code Red and Nimda. They were too stupid and > incompetent to install patches that had been out for quite a long > time. > > So again, blame stupid users and lazy administrators, not Microsoft. > > Also, if you blindly install patches and fixes without reading the > documentation first and then testing the patches, your job should be > on shakey ground. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially > unsafe at tach ments > > > Sue Mosher and I (and so many many others) made it a personal goal to > speak ill of this patch whenever possible. In fact, we only refer to > it as the Hell Patch. Not sure who coined that one but it does fit. > > So Shawn, can you show me your Project Plan and Test Plan Results for > the application of this patch in a production environment? Or did you > just blindly apply it and are now here to get your money back? > > No soup for you. NEXT!! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:16 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially > unsafe at tach ments > > > Ahhh, I love it.. > If you had bothered to do even a little research before applying the > SP you would have known this... But of course, it's Microsoft's fault. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
